[Rhodes22-list] political: CNN Poll Finds Rhodes 22 Owner As #1Political Irritant

[Herb Parsons]

Robert,

I personally find your views that the constitution is "just a piece of 
paper" to be disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Robert Skinner wrote:
> Now, Pete.  You know that "The constitution is 
> just a piece of paper," and we must all back the 
> President without reservation, or foreign terrorists 
> will question our will to lay down our lives, 
> liberties, and happiness in support of the 
> military-industrial complex that keeps us free.
>
> We must be thankful that someone has taken on the 
> burden of deciding what is right and wrong.  It 
> is abundantly clear that privacy and the right to 
> be free of arbitrary arrest and detention are 
> intolerable impediments in our death struggle with 
> those foreigners who threaten our exercise of our 
> freedoms.
>
> I hope this helps you get back on the right track.
> You need to stop challenging those who have a 
> perfectly clear picture of that way things should be.
> Your questions could weaken the resolve of citizens
> to support our war with global terrorism, wherever it 
> is, and however our leadership chooses to define it.
>
> Where did you get this idea that we could or 
> would actually impeach a sitting president?  
> Or even prosecute after him leaving office?
>
> Presidents do not commit crimes.  They may be a bit 
> overzealous in pursuit of the national interest, 
> which naturally coincides with their own, but they 
> are not criminals, no matter what they do.  They are 
> national father figures, and are automatically 
> pardoned so that their actions do not embarrass or
> divide the nation.
>
> And remember, our leadership has decided that the
> old namby-pamby restrictions on interrogation methods 
> do not apply to terrorists.  If you are not for our 
> leadership, you are against it -- and could be 
> declared a terrorist.
>
> Remember that.
>
> /Robert (cum grano salis)
>
> petelargo wrote:
>   
>> Just got back from 3 day cruise in the florida keys. It was awesome. Then,
>> Herb, I saw your posts. You ask me for my sources (verbally denigrating me
>> and doubting that I even have them). Then when I give them to you, you don't
>> like them or go "so what". It seems as if you are just going to hide behind
>> the 3 monkeys rule and regurgitate your views (while acting like you are the
>> only one without an agenda-laughable by itself).
>>
>> I don;t know what it means that the troops supported Ron Paul as their
>> number one candidate. I just thought  it was interesting that they did.
>> Don't you think it's interesting that they supported a fringe candidate like
>> him? It's open for discussion. But it's true as I said it was. Why, why,
>> why.
>>
>> When ANY politician hides their past records it is a red flag for concern.
>> Lack of transparency in politics is the road to ALL evils. And again it is a
>> fact that Bush made his service records confidential. Why, why why.
>>
>> You are not up to date on the illegality of Bushes DOMESTIC wiretapping.  Or
>> again you are hiding behind the 3 monkeys rule (see no..hear no.. speak no..
>> about Bush). And yes I am doing something about it as a supporting member of
>> IMPEACHBUSH.ORG. However, I have made it clear that if Bush is caught in a
>> proper sex scandal I will immediately drop my membership.
>>
>> data for all your illegal domestic wiretapping reading needs:
>> http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/house_nsabrief_docs_012006.html
>>
>> 1) "Now, I want to be absolutely clear. What the President ordered in this
>> case was a crime.... and we have to deal with that as citizens and,
>> unfortunately, You have to deal with that as Members of Congress....Now,
>> Members that stay silent are making a choice.  Very few Members have faced
>> this type of test of Faith.  But You are facing it now, and as Citizens and
>> as Members, it's now up to us.  We are called to account to the many
>> benefits that we have gotten from this system. We are called to account to
>> do something, and not to remain silent."
>> Jonathan Turley
>> Professor of Constitutional Law,
>> George Washington University
>>
>> 2) "...so indiscriminate and sweeping a scheme of domestic intrusion into
>> the private communications of American citizens, predicated entirely on the
>> unchecked judgment of the Executive Branch, violates the Fourth Amendment
>> 'right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and
>> seizures' even if it otherwise represents an exercise of constitutional
>> power entrusted to the President by Article II or delegated to the President
>> by Congress in exercising its powers under Article I......the argument
>> goes... Invasion of that citizenâEUR^(TM)s privacy was, alas, but one of warâEUR^(TM)s sad
>> side effects âEUR" a species of collateral damage. The technical legal term for
>> that, I believe, is poppycock. âEUR?
>>
>> Laurence H. Tribe
>> Professor of Constitutional Law
>> Harvard University
>>
>> 3) "...it is not simply a claim that the President has the sole power to
>> decide which laws to violate and when to go outside the judicial power, but
>> that he has the power to do so in secret....until the New York Times
>> reviewed this program, he withheld the fact from the American people that
>> his view was that FISA did not limit his powers.  He secretly believed that
>> he had broader authority than was laid out in the public statutes, but he
>> withheld and misled the American people about that view of his own
>> powers......examine what kind of misleading statements, if not deception,
>> were put before the Congress in connection with thisâEUR?
>> Kate Martin
>> Director
>> Center for National Security Studies
>>
>> 4) "...when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in
>> 1978, it expressly rejected the PresidentâEUR^(TM)s claim of inherent authority to
>> conduct warrantless wiretaps. It then went further and made it a crime to
>> conduct such wiretaps. The President has acted contrary to the express will
>> of the Congress. The Supreme Court has never approved a claim of
>> presidential authority to authorize acts outlawed by the Congress.âEUR?
>>
>> Kate Martin
>> Director
>> Center for National Security Studies
>>
>> 5) "...under his interpretation ... he could suspend the writ of habeas
>> corpus, ... saying: This authorization enabled me to do anything in
>> furtherance of the war effort. I can suspend the writ of habeas corpus
>> unilaterally even though Congress hasn't ...He could authorize breaking and
>> entering of homes in order to secure intelligence to fight the war against
>> terrorism, despite the fact that there is an authorized procedure in an
>> amendment to FISA that governs physical searches......the principle that the
>> President has established here, if gone unchecked, will, as Justice Robert
>> Jackson said, lie around like a loaded gun and be utilized by any future
>> incumbent who claims a need. And the history of power teaches us one thing,
>> that if it's unchecked, it will be abused.âEUR?
>>
>> Bruce Fein
>> Deputy Assistant Attorney General
>> Reagan Administration
>>
>> 6) "In each case the presidentâEUR^(TM)s answer has been the same ... Courts and
>> Congress have little or no place to question his decisions....it is
>> nonetheless a dangerous path for our nation. Our laws provide ample tools
>> for fighting terrorism without eroding basic liberties. No one, not even a
>> wartime president, is above the lawâEUR?
>> Michael S. Greco
>> President,  American Bar Association
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/political%3A-CNN-Poll-Finds-Rhodes-22-Owner-As--1-Political-Irritant-tp17068794p17068794.html
>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>     
>
>